Validation of the school age self‐administered pediatric bleeding questionnaire (Self‐PBQ) in children aged 8–12 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the pediatric population, pathologic bleeding is often challenging to identify. The pediatric bleeding questionnaire (PBQ) was developed as a screening tool for von Willebrand disease (VWD) but was designed to be self-completed by children above 12 years of age. The study objective was to determine whether a modified Self-PBQ could be completed by 8- to 12-year-old children with adult assistance. PROCEDURE: The initial phase involved seven children who underwent cognitive debriefing to identify problems in the questionnaire, resulting in modifications to wording and response options. In phase 2, children completed the modified Self-PBQ independently or with assistance from their parent at five Canadian treatment centers. Parents filled out the Self-PBQ separately to serve as a comparison. Bleeding scores derived from the child self-report were compared to those of the parent proxy. RESULTS: Twenty-nine out of 31 patient/parent pairs successfully completed the Self-PBQ. Child and parent scores demonstrated a high level of agreement with an intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.825. In the age subgroup analysis, the ICC was 0.834 and 0.824 for the 8- to 9-year-old and 10- to 12-year-old groups, respectively. The ICC was also determined in children with type 1 VWD (ICC = 0.829) versus those with more severe bleeding disorders (ICC = 0.802). Thus, age and disease severity had no significant effect on degree of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that agreement was maintained even in younger children aged 8-9 years and in children with varying bleeding phenotypes. This supports the administration of the modified Self-PBQ to 8- to 12-year-old children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".